>>4218409Okay, it makes sense when you say you're new. How long have you been at it?
These last three posts give good insight. First, the unedited photo is way dark. If you're doing long exposures and intentionally moving during the exposure then hold the camera on the flowers for longer and get them bright before adding your lighting effects. You mention the red hue you end up with; are you shooting these under streetlights? Those would chuck down a lot of orange light. Maybe see about getting out earlier in the evening? There will almost necessarily be more ambient light available and you can just stay around if you decide you'd rather it be darker. Up to you. Experiment more with different lighting situations as well; these might still look coolwith a similar procedure under daylight, if you can get the long exposure (or a double exposure) down pat.
Anyway, like I said, your initial exposure is way dark. I personally like this edit
>>4218409 best because it gives dusky vibes. It's dark, but I wouldn't call it underexposed. The yellow effect fits in nicely with the yellow in the center of the flower, and combined with the petals and the background you've got an interesting colour trio of yellow, greenish-blue, and magenta. The calm dusk vibes contrast with the chaotic effects over top as well.
>>4218413This one's a bit overexposed, imo. It really looks like you pushed it in post because those tones aren't really natural. If it'd been bright because you shot it earlier in the evening then it'd look quite different. The yellow from your lighting effect really pops here but I don't think that's necessary considering the colour contrast it has with the background and flower petals anyway.
Those are my thoughts and opinions. Feel free to disagree, obviously, but I hope you take what I said into account. I'd like to see where you can go with this.
